Guild Renown Changes

[twigzz]

So the other thread gets closed and you guys just move to another thread?

/IBTL

[Chaos000]

Asking small guilds to recruit doesn't work for a totally different reason. Small guilds are small by choice - not because of some crazy theory that small guild bonus is keeping us from recruiting. If you do the math adding a member will always be beneficial unless the person does next to nothing.

I’m going to have to call shenanigans to the statement that adding a member will always be beneficial.

For example: (to do the math) take a theoretical guild of 6 and assume each player gains (43.94) x10 the amount of renown with a +300% small guild bonus. Net total: ~440 + a bonus of 1320 = 1760. Adding an additional member reduces the small guild bonus by 15% (300 - 15= 285%). New total: ~440 + a bonus of 1254 = 1694. That translates to roughly 66 less guild renown each member is earning from before despite the same level of activity (1760 - 1694)

In order for the added member to be considered beneficial they will make up the net loss for the guild (66 x 6 members = 396). The guild would actually net a loss to add a new member that does not gain more than (43.94) x2 the amount of renown (still more than nothing) with a +285% small guild bonus (103 + a bonus of 293 = 396.)

Adding a member CAN be beneficial, in certain cases, adding a member has NOT ALWAYS been beneficial because of how much GUILD BONUSES can scale “per account”.

Here are the facts. ALL guilds no matter how big… struggle with decay. Guilds with a smaller number of highly active players (regardless of size) tend to struggle more. If this was untrue, it would be impossible for a smaller guild with a higher volume of highly active players to outperform a larger counterpart with more players and a handful of highly active players.

I can accept that guilds of 10 or less are still kind of under the old system that everyone wanted to get out of. If we want to get technical, even a guild of 11 got a nominal reduction in regards to decay per account. A reduction of decay for guilds 10 or less to match the reduction of a guild of 11 would “technically” be a reasonable request.

I understand the spirit of the request for smaller guilds to want a lower amount of decay similar to other guilds. However, when the “other guild” is a character capped guild that perhaps benefitted the most in the new system because the “per account” penalty hit them the hardest under the old system, it sets an unrealistic expectation that can’t be accepted conceptually.

Growth and recruitment should never be necessary for advancement. As a counterpoint, a guild should also not gain any benefit by reducing in number.

I firmly believe decreasing the decay enough to justify eliminating the guild size bonus entirely for guilds of 50 members or less is the route to go. I support allowing all guilds to have an opportunity for advancement. Gradual reduction of guild decay to nominal levels for smaller guilds to make it similar to eliminating it completely? Yes please.

An alternative? Guild ship size or number of guild amenities determines decay. New in DDO store! Guild amenities that doesn’t add to decay!

[Enoach]

With the 100% penalty the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. That seems fair to me. It's like the person was never in the guild. You think it is fair that a guild kicks a person and then gets to keep 75% of the renown that person earned?

Yes, I do think a guild should maintain some of the Renown a person earns while wearing their moniker.

But this is because I believe that while the person was a member of the Guild everything they do in game is a reflection of the Guild. Each of us have to admit that we do take notice when we see Good Play and Awful Play of what guild they are from. Sometimes the Guild name alone can open doors that would take much longer if not a member of said guild.

The problem we have is we don't spend time on the 90%, but instead spend so much time debating the 10% fringe cases.

1. Recruiting of Renown Mules <- Guilds that have no intention of holding onto membership, goal is to rise to a certain point fast

2. The guild member that has crossed the line <- Each guild that cares about it's image has a line and if it is crossed will generally take action to disassociate itself with the person.

These are important to understand that these are not the 90% of why Guild Leaders would need to remove an Character/Account from their roster. Lets get out of the emotionally charged 10% and back to discussing the 90%.

[slarden]

I’m going to have to call shenanigans to the statement that adding a member will always be beneficial.

For example: (to do the math) take a theoretical guild of 6 and assume each player gains (43.94) x10 the amount of renown with a +300% small guild bonus. Net total: ~440 + a bonus of 1320 = 1760. Adding an additional member reduces the small guild bonus by 15% (300 - 15= 285%). New total: ~440 + a bonus of 1254 = 1694. That translates to roughly 66 less guild renown each member is earning from before despite the same level of activity (1760 - 1694)

In order for the added member to be considered beneficial they will make up the net loss for the guild (66 x 6 members = 396). The guild would actually net a loss to add a new member that does not gain more than (43.94) x2 the amount of renown (still more than nothing) with a +285% small guild bonus (103 + a bonus of 293 = 396.)

Adding a member CAN be beneficial, in certain cases, adding a member has NOT ALWAYS been beneficial because of how much GUILD BONUSES can scale “per account”.

Here are the facts. ALL guilds no matter how big… struggle with decay. Guilds with a smaller number of highly active players (regardless of size) tend to struggle more. If this was untrue, it would be impossible for a smaller guild with a higher volume of highly active players to outperform a larger counterpart with more players and a handful of highly active players.

I can accept that guilds of 10 or less are still kind of under the old system that everyone wanted to get out of. If we want to get technical, even a guild of 11 got a nominal reduction in regards to decay per account. A reduction of decay for guilds 10 or less to match the reduction of a guild of 11 would “technically” be a reasonable request.

I understand the spirit of the request for smaller guilds to want a lower amount of decay similar to other guilds. However, when the “other guild” is a character capped guild that perhaps benefitted the most in the new system because the “per account” penalty hit them the hardest under the old system, it sets an unrealistic expectation that can’t be accepted conceptually.

Growth and recruitment should never be necessary for advancement. As a counterpoint, a guild should also not gain any benefit by reducing in number.

I firmly believe decreasing the decay enough to justify eliminating the guild size bonus entirely for guilds of 50 members or less is the route to go. I support allowing all guilds to have an opportunity for advancement. Gradual reduction of guild decay to nominal levels for smaller guilds to make it similar to eliminating it completely? Yes please.

An alternative? Guild ship size or number of guild amenities determines decay. New in DDO store! Guild amenities that doesn’t add to decay!

In your example, if I add a person and they only earn 24% of the renown of the average member in my guild they are still adding renown. 24% of the Average. So no this isn't something I worry about or consider because as we add people to the guild it's like adding 3 people. On average people will benefit renown and not hurt it, so I am not going to micromanage for exceptions. That makes no sense.

Secondly, anyone in the guild can add a new member. Most of the people in the guild no nothing about renown - they just play the game. They add people they want to add and don't check with me or the guild leader about it.

If we remove decay for all guilds and make slight modifications to the guild bonus (mainly flattening the 2-12 curve and making it 200% for all those sizes), small guilds are still at a big disadvantage for leveling, but they still have a chance to get the ships and amenities as consistent with the original vision. I think the leveling disadvantage is fine - it's not a penalty, it's simply slower progress.

If they want to get rid of small guild bonus, I am actually fine with that if they don't tie ships and amenties to levels. Because those have in game benefits and all gulids should have a chance for those. I don't really care about level. This was recognized up front and that is why the small guild bonus was included.

I understand the frustration many of you in large guilds have that some small guilds made tremendous progress and climbed to 100 with fewer members while your guilds struggled with decay. I like the idea of the system changing from an activity based system with chess-like ratings to something closer to a true leveling system.

[eris2323]

Where are all these guilds that are doing mass recruiting, it must be a horrendous problem, somewhere, for all of you to be terrified out of your boots.

Or it's not.

And 3 idle people are able to keep a level 70+ guild afloat, and 4 idle people are able to keep a level 91 guild afloat.

(let's just not forget people. four people is all it takes to keep a level 91 guild floating... and they want it easier for small guilds)

[Gremmlynn]

So if you have soemone in your guild that turns into a total jerk, crating a 100% removal panalty is fair?

Nope...

Peopel have to come to the conclusion that the system was never meant for or designed so that all guilds could reach 100... Period.. Right or wrong, no matter what your opinion is...

I know life isn't fair... That sign that the doctor was holding when you were born that said it was, was a complete lie...

People don't tend to turn into total jerks after not being a total jerk for a long enough period to represent a huge loss to the guild. More likely, someone has a really big falling out with the GL or a close crony and that GL doesn't want to give up the renown the booted player earned to settle this personal issue.

That's what keeps a sort of balance of power in place.

Much better than allowing guilds to mass boot a large number of players they exploited to gain their levels and keep 75% of the renown.

Also, I think people have come to the conclusion that the system works best if all guilds have the ability to reach level 100. I agree.

[Gremmlynn]

The kick penalty, whether 100% or the current one, needs to be addressed at some point and in some form, unless decay goes away, at least. Oh, and level 100 renown would have to be openended, too, or those guilds would wind up in trouble when kicking, too.

I disagree as that just moves back the point at which guilds can start jettisoning players. IMO, kicking a player from the guild should not be something to be done lightly and if a level 100 guild drops in level because of it, they can always gain it back.

[Dandonk]

I disagree as that just moves back the point at which guilds can start jettisoning players. IMO, kicking a player from the guild should not be something to be done lightly and if a level 100 guild drops in level because of it, they can always gain it back.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. Methinks there are some serious issues with the kicking mechanic, and I can't figure out how to get it to work. Oh, well.

Anyway.... Turbine? Hello? Are you there? Or has this turned into a support-ticketish scenario?

[eris2323]

I haven't noticed mass recruiting. There have been 2 cases in my guild where large guilds sent recrutment tells to vets. This was mentioned by someone else in the general discussion thread as well. That is the only "recruitment" change I've noticed in the last few weeks.

As for people keeping guilds afloat, it's a matter of activity. The same was possible with large guilds under the old system but large guilds said they couldn't generate enough activity to level. If you think this is how guild levels should be measured it woudl be a recommendation to go back to the old system.

As of right now only small guilds of 10 or less under the old activity based system. Guilds slightly above 10 didn't much benefit either and their level is also heavily based on activity.

I don't think the double-standard works. We should either revert to the activity-based system because as you pointed out guilds can still level. Or we should go to a leveling advancement system. I prefer the latter.

The reality is most small guilds are under level 60 and less than 1% are over 90. So using a level 90 guild isn't really an accurate benchmark for a small guild.

You use a lot of words.

Here's the facts: you admitted 3 people are keeping your guild afloat.

Another person admitted 4 casual people keeping their guild afloat.

you want it easier than that?

4. casual. players. are holding, and probably gaining towards level 100 (I haven't checked).

Your percentages and math you like to make up are garbage - you can't know how many 'guilds' are just 1 guy who formed a guild to get invites to stop... you can't know many things, and yet you assume them all to be true.

So what is it, exactly... that you want?

You want it made so that what, 1 person can hold a level 100 guild afloat?

One person can casually play their way to 100? How long would you like it take? a day? two days?

Stop trying to cheapen the guild experience by demanding that solo and tiny guilds be able to advance quicker than they are now - they're doing fine.

ANY guild system where any solo-er player can equal a guild of 100 players ever is, in my opinion - broken. Totally.

A GUILD IS NOT A SOLO PLAYER. AND SMALL GUILDS ARE DOING FINE THANK YOU THEY DON'T NEED YET MORE ADVANTAGES.

[eris2323]

Besides - the system is fine - tiny guilds will still have a use for renown pots, because, holy moly, if you three casual players are keeping your guild afloat, a few store-bought potions should help you AND turbine.

Yay for turbine, for retaining a customer for their product - the poor renown potions.

And thank you, tiny guilds, for your valiant donation towards keeping DDO afloat.

[slarden]

You use a lot of words.

Here's the facts: you admitted 3 people are keeping your guild afloat.

Another person admitted 4 casual people keeping their guild afloat.

you want it easier than that?

4. casual. players. are holding, and probably gaining towards level 100 (I haven't checked).

Your percentages and math you like to make up are garbage - you can't know how many 'guilds' are just 1 guy who formed a guild to get invites to stop... you can't know many things, and yet you assume them all to be true.

So what is it, exactly... that you want?

You want it made so that what, 1 person can hold a level 100 guild afloat?

One person can casually play their way to 100? How long would you like it take? a day? two days?

Stop trying to cheapen the guild experience by demanding that solo and tiny guilds be able to advance quicker than they are now - they're doing fine.

ANY guild system where any solo-er player can equal a guild of 100 players ever is, in my opinion - broken. Totally.

A GUILD IS NOT A SOLO PLAYER. AND SMALL GUILDS ARE DOING FINE THANK YOU THEY DON'T NEED YET MORE ADVANTAGES.

I would like the same thing you requested previously, to elimnate decay. I would like a system that is consistent with decay for all people regardless of what guild they are in. I think the elimination of decay makes the most sense.

First of all you are mis-stating what someone said about the level 90 guild. He said his guild with 30 accounts had only 4 that were active (playing with frequency). This doesn't mean the other 26 are doing nothing, it just means they aren't doing as much as the other 4. That guild just received a 50% reduction in decay due to the change and he was thanking Turbine for the reduced decay because they are no longer moving backwards.

You are once again being deceptive about my guild. My guild has 8 people and all the people keep the guild alfoat, not just 3 people. Please stop demeaning the casual people in my guild by not counting them as a person. Activity level varies, sometimes someone doesn't log on for 4 months and then logs on and play alot for 2 weeks. We appreciate them as people regardless of their renown contribution. We like our guild and the people in it. I would like to see the people in my guild have decay lowered like it was for folks in other guilds.

You don't think a person in a small guild should have any benefits from the guild system . This directly contradicts what Turbine said about the guild system. We would like to hear from Turbine on this issue so it can be put that issue to rest.

Small guilds don't have it easy which is why most are under level 60. Small guilds with very high average activity levels can do fine. Elixirs help, but make no sense under the new system which will make it even harder for small gulds like mine that used to spend money on elixirs. Most of the folks I've discussed the issue with on Sarlona also plan to discontinue the use of elixirs. Why take them when the system is set up so small guilds can't level?

Btw, the math is correct. Just because you don't know it, doesn't make it incorrect.

[eris2323]

I would like the same thing you requested previously, to elimnate decay. I would like a system that is consistent with decay for all people regardless of what guild they are in. I think the elimination of decay makes the most sense.

First of all you mis-stating what someone said about the level 90 guild out of context. He said his guild with 30 accounts had only 4 that were active (playing with frequency). This doesn't mean the other 26 are doing nothing, it just means they aren't doing as much as the other 4. That guild just received a 50% reduction in decay due to the change and he was thanking Turbine for the reduced decay because they are no longer moving backwards.

You are once again being deceptive about my guild. My guild has 8 people and all the people keep the guild alfoat, not just 3 people. Please stop demeaning the casual people in my guild by not counting them as a person. Activity level varies, sometimes someone doesn't log on for 4 months and then logs on and play alot for 2 weeks. We appreciate them as people regardless of their renown contribution. We like our guild and the people in it. I would like to see the people in my guild have decay lowered like it was for folks in other guilds.

You don't think a person in a small guild should have any benefits from the guild system . This directly contradicts what Turbine said about the guild system. We would like to hear from Turbine on this issue so it can be put that issue to rest.

Small guilds don't have it easy which is why most are under level 60. Small guilds with very high average activity levels can do fine. Elixirs help, but make no sense under the new system which will make it even harder for small gulds like mine that used to spend money on elixirs. Most of the folks I've discussed the issue with on Sarlona also plan to discontinue the use of elixirs. Why take them when the system is set up so small guilds can't level?

Seems to me a tiny guild is a perfect candidate to buy renown potions, and turbine needs the income...

So you are all demanding Turbine make it easier for you, or you will stop spending on renown potions?

Then stop advancing.

And stop trying to threaten Turbine.

If Turbine wanted the guild system to be entirely easy enough that 3 casual players can level up to 100; then they would have set the new decay multiplier to 0, instead of 20, and we'd all have 0 decay.

They didn't.

[Enoach]

I think the "emotionally charged" part is in your head because I am certainly not emotional about it. I don't think a guild should get any benefit for kicking a member. Zero.

You don't lose anything with a 100% penalty for booting, you just don't gain anything. Regardless of the reason for booting, I think it's fair that a gulid gains no benefit from taking on a member and then later booting that member.

For guilds that boot members rarely it will have little impact. If someone is worth booting, the renown should not really be a factor. The 100% boot penalty is pretty much a "catch all" for any type of abuse and it's very fair. When a member is booted, the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. It's like the person was never in the guild.

You say your not emotionally charged, have you not taken a look at how many posts you have alone in this thread, are you missing the emotional words you are using? You are emotionally invested in the outcome.

I'm going to have to disagree with you about the gains and losses

Example: I have 4 characters in my guild that have been there since Renown was started. If all 4 characters were booted from the Guild which is currently level 72 the guild would loose over 2 Million Renown. This would Drop them to level 69. Now hears the rub, I'm only 1 of 143 Active accounts in the guild. The Guild Looses 3 Levels, access to amenities for Platinum Purchase and members lose access to large augment slots. So I make up 0.7% of the guild membership but I can effectively erase 4.2% of the guild levels. Lets keep in mind Guild Renown decays, not player renown.

Loosing on 25% of that still might drop them a single level but not 3.

I know that in my guild the majority of the character removal is to find room for newer members as we are always teetering at the 1000 Character Limit. We have "Cycle your Alts" periods and then clean up will occur on the older Last seens which could be at the 1 year mark, usually just enough to open up the space.

The problem I see with the 100% renown loss no matter what is that it penalizes the guild for making the right decision as an effort to prevent a low occurring potential abuse. However, I believe the community has honestly done a better job at handling these few abusing Guilds than what Turbine System could ever have done.

=========================================
Now if the system was changed so that the Player's had renown decayed and the guild level was based off of the Total renown of all characters and characters were able to keep their renown and take it with them I might be able to get on board with the idea that the Guild loses 100% of the Renown. But even this could be abused, as per my previous example if I just found 49 others with the similar amount of Renown a Level 100 Guild could be born overnight.

[eris2323]

I am not threatening Turbine, you are making that up again. Turbine is asking for feedback. My feedback is that buying elixirs makes no sense when all it's going to do is help me to get to a level ceiling faster. Large guilds will have a higher ceiling or no ceiling. If getting to a higher level is important, I cant do it anyhow so why take elixirs to just bounce up against a ceiling a few levels higher and/or get there a little faster. It's a fool's game when only people in small guilds have this issue. Elixirs would make more sense if they went towards actually progress like experience elixirs.

You bring up a good point about Turbine. They are in fact saying that by being silent, but I am not sure if that their intention or not. If they tell us they are intentionally making it hard for small guilds and that is their future plan, we can all stop wasting our time providing feedack. The feedback window they gave was 1 week. We are well beyond that and yet Turbine hasn't said anything.

Actually, in your sig you are suggesting to all players that they should stop buying renown potions, and you have brought it up in conversation in the forums.

You are trying to threaten turbine with a dastardly suggestion of causing them financial harm, because you want the rules easier for a tiny guild.

You think this will help your case.

They are not 'making it hard' - it has always been this way.

You are only complaining now because other people got a rules-change, and you did not.

[slarden]

You say your not emotionally charged, have you not taken a look at how many posts you have alone in this thread, are you missing the emotional words you are using? You are emotionally invested in the outcome.

I'm going to have to disagree with you about the gains and losses

Example: I have 4 characters in my guild that have been there since Renown was started. If all 4 characters were booted from the Guild which is currently level 72 the guild would loose over 2 Million Renown. This would Drop them to level 69. Now hears the rub, I'm only 1 of 143 Active accounts in the guild. The Guild Looses 3 Levels, access to amenities for Platinum Purchase and members lose access to large augment slots. So I make up 0.7% of the guild membership but I can effectively erase 4.2% of the guild levels. Lets keep in mind Guild Renown decays, not player renown.

Loosing on 25% of that still might drop them a single level but not 3.

I know that in my guild the majority of the character removal is to find room for newer members as we are always teetering at the 1000 Character Limit. We have "Cycle your Alts" periods and then clean up will occur on the older Last seens which could be at the 1 year mark, usually just enough to open up the space.

The problem I see with the 100% renown loss no matter what is that it penalizes the guild for making the right decision as an effort to prevent a low occurring potential abuse. However, I believe the community has honestly done a better job at handling these few abusing Guilds than what Turbine System could ever have done.

=========================================
Now if the system was changed so that the Player's had renown decayed and the guild level was based off of the Total renown of all characters and characters were able to keep their renown and take it with them I might be able to get on board with the idea that the Guild loses 100% of the Renown. But even this could be abused, as per my previous example if I just found 49 others with the similar amount of Renown a Level 100 Guild could be born overnight.

Commenting on a topic and being emotional are too different things. Wanting a fair system is not an emotional response, it is a logical one. Using math and other data to show how unfair the system is for guilds of 10 or less is not emotional, it's factual.

The irony is that large guilds are going to gain numerous levels in a 12 month period with the massive decay reduction. A small level 60 guild would only gain 2 extra levels from the complete elimination of decay, and yet some in large guilds don't want the small guilds to gain 2 extra levels even though they will gain 10+ extra levels during the same period.

As for your desire to boot people and keep 75% of their renown - I disagree. The person that is getting booted also loses something for a decision that may or may not be a fair decision. They have no control over that decision. The 100% penalty is a much better way to make sure that booting is done fairly. Booting should be the exception in which case it should have minimal impact.

As it is, when the very large guilds like your reach 100 with some cushion there is effectively no penalty for booting because those guilds will still be at 100. If "kicking" was a reason this change was made as the devs directly stated, we need to do more to penalize kicking. 100% renown loss is a good way to do this.

[smatt]

With the 100% penalty the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. That seems fair to me. It's like the person was never in the guild. You think it is fair that a guild kicks a person and then gets to keep 75% of the renown that person earned?

Yes, yes I do...... While I'm sure there are guilds out there that would "use" people in such a way. It would be very rare.... While somone is in a guild they are benefittign from that guild, why shouldn't the guild benefit from them. The 10 and 20% losses are a fair monitor on guilds in my view.

I think you need to accept that there are advantages and disadvantages to social groups, of various sizes, and make-ups whether it's in a game or any place else. They are not all equal.... Life isn't fair and equal, it never has been and never will be.

[smatt]

I think the "emotionally charged" part is in your head because I am certainly not emotional about it. I don't think a guild should get any benefit for kicking a member. Zero.

You don't lose anything with a 100% penalty for booting, you just don't gain anything. Regardless of the reason for booting, I think it's fair that a gulid gains no benefit from taking on a member and then later booting that member.

For guilds that boot members rarely it will have little impact. If someone is worth booting, the renown should not really be a factor. The 100% boot penalty is pretty much a "catch all" for any type of abuse and it's very fair. When a member is booted, the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. It's like the person was never in the guild.

Sorry, I haven't seen any kind of evidence that guils are just booting people. I guess it happens on occasion, but not nearly enough that an entire system needs to be changed.

[Dandonk]

I think you need to accept that there are advantages and disadvantages to social groups, of various sizes, and make-ups whether it's in a game or any place else. They are not all equal.... Life isn't fair and equal, it never has been and never will be.

So it's OK it's unfair now, just as long as it isn't unfair to -your- kind of guild?

[slarden]

Here is a comparison of the test system vs. a system with no decay:



Under the old system, large guilds faced an interesting and frustrating challenge. Decay was much higher than the leveling requirements. As a result with the large decrease in decay, those guilds can now apply that decay savings directly to leveling. This is why large guilds have been able to gain so many levels recently. A level 70 guild of 200 is saving 3,000,000 in decay per month and the requirement to level up is less than one million.

If we eliminated decay completely, the very large guilds of 200+ would benefit as would all guilds. However, the monthly savings that a level 60 or 70 small guild would realize wouldn't even be enough to gain 1 level.

With the total elimination of decay, large guilds would continue to level much faster than small guilds, but it allows stalled guilds to start moving forward. It allows all guilds to advance at a faster pace. Guilds in the 50-100 range woudn't hit a ceiling like they would in the curernt test system.

A major imbalance was created by the test system. Slightly modifying that system to eliminate all decay would only allow all guilds to get to 100 eventually, although small guilds would still take much longer to reach 100 than larger guilds. It woudn't create a significant imbalance relative to the imbalance created by the test system.

It's also interesting to note that under the old system, decay rose much higher as a percentage each level than the leveling requirement. As a result, 50,000,000 is not such a large goal for a large guild. We had one guild state that they paid 50,000,000 annually in decay under the old system when it was calculated on a per account basis. They will save at least 45,000,000 in decay assuming the guild maintains its level or advances.

Another intesting side note. The annual decay savings of a level 70 guild of 10 would be less than the monthly savings of a level 70 guild of 300 if decay was completely eliminated. It would take a full year with no decay for a guild of 10 to get the same benefit a guild of 300 received in the last month.

[Dandonk]

Please, Jester, can I get decrease in small guild decay that's on par with the large guild decrease for Festivult? /puppyeyes